 We have not started yet, but we are welcome to the 23rd meeting in 2015 of the Health and Sport Committee. We would ask everyone in the room to switch off mobile phones as they can interfere with the sound system. We all see some of the members in the room using tablet devices instead of hard copies of their papers. We have received apologies today from our convener, Duncan McNeill, and I will be chairing today's meeting as a deputy convener of the committee. The first item on the agenda today is the declaration of interests. I would welcome Malcolm Chisholm on to the health committee. It's great to have you here. I would also like to put on record our thanks to Richard Simpson for all his previous work. I think that we are running up 10 years in total in relation to his work in health in the Scottish Palence. Our thanks to Richard Simpson as well. At this point, I invite Malcolm Chisholm to declare any relevant interests to the work of the committee. I usually declare my membership of trade unions, EIS and Unison. Thank you very much, Malcolm, and we will move on to agenda item 2, which is the health, tobacco, nicotine etc. in Care Scotland bill, which is the second item on our agenda today. First, as members may be aware, youth events were held in the Parliament and an Inverclyde on video blogging. Young people recorded their views in restricting the sales of e-cigarettes and banning smoking in parts of hospital grounds. Having watched the video, I think that we would want to thank all those who provided their views and impressively so. Thank you to them for that, and I wanted to put that on the record. I would normally introduce our witnesses today, but the fact is that it is a round-table event. I thought that they could introduce themselves, including our committee members. We will go round the table and I will start off. I am Bob Doris and I am deputy convener of the Health and Sport Committee. I am John Lee. I am head of public affairs at the Scottish Grossers Federation, the National Trade Association for the Independent Convenience Store sector in Scotland. I am Rhoda Grant, MSP for the Highlands and Islands. I am Catherine Diplen, president of Iseta, the electronic cigarette industry trade association. I am Dennis Hopson, MSP for Aberdeenshire West. I am Colin Keir, MSP for Edinburgh Western. I am Guy Parker, chief executive of the advertising standards authority. I am Milne MSP for North East Scotland. I am Charlie Cunningham-Reed. I am head of corporate affairs for Japan Tobacco International, JTI. JTI acquired Zandira company last November. With that, we acquired one of the largest e-cigarette brands in the UK called Elites. Good morning, I am Richard Lyle, central region. Hi, I am Alan, head of marketing and communications from VapePrize, one of Scotland's largest e-cig retailers. I am Malcolm Trasim, MSP for Edinburgh Northern and Leith. I am Mark Feeney, policy and development pharmacist at Community Pharmacy Scotland and I am also a practicing community pharmacist. Mike McKenzie, MSP, and I represent the Highlands and Islands region. Thank you to everyone for that and welcome to all our witnesses. Now there are no opening statements from our witnesses, so we will move straight to questions. Can I ask the first question from Malcolm Trasim, MSP, please? Thank you very much, convener. I apologise, I have to go out for a short time in the middle of the meeting and thanks to Bob Doris for letting me in. I have a specific question just to start off on. One of the issues in the bill is the need for retailers of e-cigarettes to be on the tobacco retailers register and this is objected to, among others, by Community Pharmacy Scotland to say the stigma of having to be on the tobacco retailers register will likely mean that many community pharmacies will choose not to supply NVPs. I am actually quite interested in the general role of community pharmacies in relation to this but my specific question really is would that problem be avoided if there was a separate register for those dispensing e-cigarettes? Would that get round the problem or would Community Pharmacy Scotland still object to that and obviously the views of others would be welcome as well? I suppose we should start with Mr Finlay on that one. I suppose the first thing that we say is that we haven't given any specific guidance on these products and our members use their professional judgment and with the evidence available you could make a case for supplying them or not supplying them because there's different evidence from different reputable sources. As we stated in our evidence, I think the stigma of being linked to a tobacco register would mean that a lot of our members would choose not to supply the products if it's incompatible with healthcare services, tobacco in general. So that's whether another register would be appropriate. I think there is a need for some form of controls. Community pharmacies are already regulated by the General Pharmacy to go to council to strict standards and pharmacists and pharmacy technicians are as well. So whether a pharmacy would need that but I think it would be up to our individual members to decide but it would certainly be a positive step away from the tobacco register if it was a separate register for these products. Okay, now Mr Finlay, why don't you look at some other witnesses' comments and let you come back in perhaps with a supplementary that might be quite helpful. Can I just say if witnesses do want to speak, try and catch my eye and don't do it subtly because I'm not that good at that. Can I invite Catherine Devlin? Thank you for the question. It's a concern that we have obviously from the industry's point of view, the electronic cigarette industry is almost 95% independent of the tobacco industry and there is a quite passionate devotion to keeping it that way. Certainly most of the electronic cigarette retailers are very keen to not be viewed as tobacco product centre to not have anything to do with the tobacco industry. We suggested that if the, we agree with the principle of a register by the way because we think it's going to help with enforcement but we do think that the naming of the register would be a very important aspect of that. Now there are a number of age-restricted products which it might be useful for enforcement officers if there were a register for traders in those things including tobacco obviously already but also electronic cigarettes. Anything else that's age-restricted actually so potentially glues, knives, scissors, alcohol, whatever else it might be. So we wondered if there might be an option to look at perhaps having a register for all age-restricted products named like that in a very non-stigmatising way so that our friends in the pharmacy wouldn't have any problem with that but it would then free up the opportunity to sell them. I have concerns for Scottish Government resourcing to set up separate registers which I would hope could be mitigated in perhaps an intelligent approach to renaming the existing administrative system rather than necessarily creating two. Thank you. Alan Tito. Again, just to echo Catherine's comment I do agree that there needs to be a register I think at the moment, specifically with electronic cigarette retailers there's a divide, there's a lot of self-regulation within the industry and while some companies will abide by that self-regulation other companies will not. So I definitely think that a register is needed I would definitely agree again with Catherine that we need to step away from the association with tobacco products they don't contain any tobacco and I think it's something that we struggle with on a daily basis trying to make people aware of that and I think putting them on to a list that is specifically titled a tobacco retailers list will go against a lot of our hard work. Okay, thank you Alan, join Lee. Thank you, convener. Just to say very briefly that from the point of view of convenience store retailers we would rather not have a separate register our members have wholeheartedly embraced the tobacco retail register there's full compliance with that it's cost-free, it's really not onerous to access it and register yourself on it so we would rather not have a separate register that our members had to take time to comply with and additionally we would rather not see a proliferation of registers about age-restricted products I think it's easy to forget how many age-restricted products there actually are that the cure chocolates are age-restricted lottery tickets are age-restricted fireworks, certain DVDs and so on so we would rather not have a proliferation of age-restricted registers and really for the sake of compliance we would rather it was just a single register for tobacco and NVPs. Yes, Charlie Cunningham-Reed We would fully support the register for e-cigarette retailers and I think it's important to note that e-cigarettes are now available in thousands of retail outlets across the country both grocers which John is representing news agents so again I just reiterate that I think from a retailers perspective there does need to be some simplicity and if there are many different registers that will get very complex and burdensome for retailers. Okay, I'm going to Catherine Devlin but just before that no one else indicated the wish to comment on this at this stage so I'll come after Catherine for a supplementary question Catherine. Yes, I just wanted to clarify we're not suggesting multiple registers that would be an administrative nightmare for all the retailers. What we would like to see there is a renaming of the existing one which could be a very simple extension to the plug-in that the retailers are already doing the most cost effective and efficient solution for both government enforcement and for retailers. I don't know if I've got a supplementary on that particular issue because amid the differences there is a certain amount of agreement on that that we need to change the bill in some way to deal with concerns about that. I had another question which I recognise is very specific but I kind of think it's relevant to our general discussions because and Community Pharmacy Scotland may be able to help with that it's really just for some information because last week Professor Linda Bald indicated that devices that contain more than 20 milligrams per millimetre of nicotine would be covered in terms of medicinal products by the tobacco products directive and it did seem to me that was going to be relevant to this whole regulation business quite soon when that directive applied so I suppose my basic question is does that level of concentration cover quite a lot of e-cigarettes on a very small number because it does seem to me to be relevant to our deliberations on the bill so I don't know if Community Pharmacy Scotland or one of the industry people can enlighten me and perhaps others on that. Catherine Devlin, first you would like and I'll take you in the second mark but Catherine. I'll have a go. The reality is that at the moment before TPD implementation there is a considerable amount our data shows that it's approximately that is nicotine concentrations above 20 milligrams per mill which is 2%. When that restriction comes in nobody is going to be seeking a medicinal licence for a product over 20mg per mill what they will do is cease selling those which means a third of the market potentially is not going to be properly catered for obviously that directive is being challenged through the courts anyway but I don't think there's going to be an immediate concern for assembly members about the medicinal products suddenly appearing on the market because the licensing process is too onerous and nobody will do it so I don't think that needs to be too much of a concern it will just mean that everything is below 2%. Mark Finlay? A number of our members have worked with manufacturers to get products which would be over the 20mg per mill and we'd probably share the concern that it's unlikely that a product will come to licence soon and due to the onerous aspects of the MHRA processes so that is a concern because I think there should be a role for a licence product particularly with the emerging evidence among an NHS smoking cessation service so that is a concern and certainly we would welcome licence medicinal products to the market as soon as practically possible. Mark Finlay? Do you want to come in specifically on this? Question convener and it's just to promote our understanding of this. You mentioned the figure of 20mg per milliliter can anybody shed any light on how that particular ratio came about? Why was that chosen as the datum? Is it a number of thin air? Is there evidence to back up by that figure's been chosen? Catherine, you had before Mike asked his question you had indicated you were wishing to comment on that. From what we saw with the TPD process originally the figure was 4mg per mill 0.4% which they had mathematically inaccurately derived from NRT concentrations there was a significant lack of understanding within the EU institutions about how nicotine concentrations actually work and certainly how nicotine and electronic cigarettes is delivered to the user. By the end of the agreed process it was I believe still at the 4mg per mill but then in the last three weeks of trilog the entire article was rewritten behind closed doors considerably extended with no process whatsoever and it does appear that the figure 20mg per mill was plucked from the air during that last-minute process if you can call it a process so it doesn't bear much resemblance to any kind of evidence base that could support that it was necessary or desirable. Am I issuing some written evidence with the committee about that specific aspect? I'll set it in turn because I'll write that for you. That's helpful. Mark Feeney hasn't indicated he wanted a nodding head there so I don't know if you add anything to that. I've just from speaking to research colleagues my understanding is there isn't any evidence base on the 20mg per mill. Okay, thank you for putting that on the record as well. Rhoda? Yes, just on that. What is so onerous about the process of getting them registered as medical my understanding is there is a product registered as a medical device but hasn't been brought to market and it seems to me that if they were registered as medical devices it would provide a degree of reassurance as to what was in them, their safety and the like which is some of the issues I think people have with them I think people think anything that stops people smoking is good but because we don't really know what's in them, the chemicals used and the impact of that I think people are taking the precautionary principle so what's the issues about registration? Mark Feeney and then we'll take Charlie Cunningham and read after that. I'm afraid, Rhoda, I have no expert in how to get a product licence through the MHRA or the EMA I think from my understanding it's very expensive and it's very tight in terms of the restrictions that the MHRA would put on that so I think that it would be at a level that would be restrictive to most companies to bring a product to market. Charlie, can you read? I just reiterate what Mark said certainly we are relatively new into the e-cigarettes but certainly we're looking to develop many different products in the future and my understanding is yes to get a product registered for MHRA costs many millions of dollars and many years potentially in terms of getting the evidence that the health claims that are going to be made are valid so I think it's probably not an area where there's going to be a huge amount of products available as MHRA registered in the near future. Okay, thank you Mr Cunningham I'll read, I'll just give you a running order for people who have indicated the wish to speak Catherine Devlin followed by Mark Feeney and then Dennis will get again after that, okay Catherine? Okay, I'm just getting this out to show you to give you an idea as to why medicinal licensing is not the way forward that's the one I use I obviously won't be using it in here but just to give you an idea there are eight different manufacturers involved in the production of this product and when we discussed with the MHRA how they were going to license things like this and these are the products that vapours actually need and smokers need to actually fully make the switch the sort of siga-like products that potentially could be broken down enough and reformulated to get a medicines licence are not effective and they're not attractive enough to smokers to get significant numbers able to make the switch fully away from smoking which is the goal if public health is the goal so I think it's also important to remember what the PHE report suggested about licensed medicinal products no matter what kind of relaxations were given to NRT products in terms of the licensing restrictions on them, they were put on GSL they were made much more it was much easier to license a tobacco harm reduction product in NRT than nicotine replacement therapies the patches, the gums and so on they still didn't become attractive to smokers and it's actually the attractiveness to smokers that is where we can really reap the full public health benefits and potential of these products but it needs to be the ones that really work for people and it needs to be the ones that they will actively want to switch to Thank you Catherine Mark Finlay? It's just my understanding from the research convener is that the devices that are most effective in terms of cessation will be more difficult to get a registered licence so that's a particular concern and we would hope that there would be a pragmatic approach to that so that the most effective products for cessation can be used with the smoking cessation services Thank you Mark Dennis Robertson It's a couple of points maybe one for Catherine first and that is that in the submission I got slightly confused in terms of the product which was either non-nicotine and you were suggesting that that would be out with the government scope for the regulation my understanding is that all the cigarettes or the vapour products will be within the bill so I was a bit confused when you sort of just related it to nicotine products only and the other thing to me before JTI is in their submission there was looking at obviously the regulation and you've taken a very I think a very sensible approach in terms of ensuring that products stay out of the hands of 18 year olds both tobacco and electronic cigarettes but you also say that in the introduction that they should always be aware of the risks involved and I'm just wondering what do you see are the risks involved with the e-cigarettes I'm just wondering I was about it in Catherine Devlin first but Charlie Cunningham did you want to come in there well certainly as JTI we do not make any health claims for our e-cigarette products at this point in time I think regarding the risks we believe that it's still a nicotine product we need to make sure and be responsible how we market those products and of course when TPD 2 comes in next May there will be health warnings on the products so there will be 30% health warning on all e-cigarette products so we agree with that and we think that there is a necessity to highlight at this point in time these products are not entirely risk-free we see a lot of research coming from various different bodies and I think that research is positive for the e-cigarette industry and I think it shows that there are e-cigarettes are no doubt a potentially less harmful way of smoking but I would say certainly from JTI's perspective we would not claim that absolutely risk-free at this stage just before that Dennis I will give you the opportunity to come back in I promise just before I take Catherine who has had a very specific question I think in relation to non-nicotine products I saw Mike Mackenzie was looking for a supplementary was that specifically in relation to the kind of health aspect we should take a precautionary approach to e-cigarettes but just in terms of understanding the risks to health is anybody able to shed any light on how it may the risks might compare for instance with the risks of eating too many donuts we do have an obesity problem it would be very helpful for us as parliamentarians to get some kind of understanding of the level of risk that we might be facing perhaps they are unknown but I think we should be able to be helpful if we can get a pointer what kind of ballpark are we in here OK who would like to take that that works out perfectly Mike that's helpful because Catherine Devlin has got another question to answer as well Mike's point first I absolutely support any and all government bodies desires to take a precautionary approach and it's certainly true to say that we don't yet know everything there is to know about electronic cigarettes and vaping we don't know what the long term effects are going to be we can't know that yet but there is an awful lot that we do know we know a lot about the basic chemistry we know a lot about what the product is made up of and how those chemicals in combination will behave when heated there's more work going on on that we're doing an extensive period at the moment to feed into the standards work that we did and in procreation for TPD so we do know an awful lot about this the most important fundamental thing that we know is that this is not combustion this is not setting fire to something and producing the byproducts of combustion so we know that this is not giving off any polyaromatic hydrocarbons it's not giving off all of those dangerous tar and all the kind of things that we know cause masses of long term health damage and indeed quite immediate health damage in some cases as well so we know quite a lot we don't know enough so in taking a precautionary approach it's very important that we have the balance because to truly take a precautionary approach you have to weigh up the balance of both sides always and we need to always set it in the context of what we do know which is that 50% of smokers continue to die an alarming rate prematurely for smoking related disease and death we know that this involves none of the harms that can be associated with smoke it must be orders of magnitude safer than smoking that is not to suggest for one second that it's safe nothing is safe if you barbecue bacon it releases a huge amount of carcinogens does that mean that everybody should stop barbecuing bacon it's a question of choice really isn't it thank you can I just also answer when the bacon is in bacon or donuts wrap your bacon around your donuts and you are well away aren't you when the brick was coming in okay so we did have and we still frequently do have significant concerns about this general pervasive attitude with policy makers and to be fair this does not include this assembly but they focus on the nicotine Dwi'n credu dweud yw'r oedd yn cael ei wneud o'r nieig, mae'n ddweud o'r llwyffodol yn cael ei llwyffodol. Ydi'r gweithio'r amgylcheddau yn cael ei ddweud fel y bydd yn y dyfodol. A'r ddweud o'r gweithio'r llwyffodol yn cael ei ddweud, mae'n credu ffraeg yw'r llwyffodol yn cael ei ddweud. Mae'n cael ei ddweud yw'r gweithio'r ddweud. Mae'n cael ei ddweud o'r llwyffodol yn y sydd yn gweithio'r progrwm ydiol, as an ingredient in electronic cigarettes, it can lead to popcorn lung, it can cause permanent irreversible lung damage. Now, I'm certain that none of the industry colleagues that I've ever worked with would ever want to do that to one of their customers. But equally, whether or not there's nicotine, it really matters that regulation legislation standards apply to all vaping products irrespective of the nicotine content. Now, I have had the opportunity to speak with one of the civil servants who works here about this issue, and she assured me that this was not the intention of this bill, and that actually it was deliberately constructed so that it would catch all of them. My concern relates to the pervasive use of the term N-V-P, because the N-V-P, again, focuses on the nicotine rather than focusing on vaping products, which are all for inhalation. So, hopefully that clarifies that one a little bit, but I do think it does cover them, but it could cover them more clearly. Dennis, I'm going to let you in. I just want to give Richard Lyle a heads up. We're going to move the conversaries from another area, and I say I don't know if Richard wants to come on with another very specific question, but Dennis, yeah? No, no, I think that that clarifies the situation to me now, just that the submission was confusing to some extent. So, I thank Catherine for that clarification. Also, can I say that, you know, from the aspect what we're hearing is that, and I suspect maybe all witnesses are accepting there is a risk factor, although in some cases an unknown risk factor, but all products in terms of vaping do have a risk associated to it, as does obviously smoking with tobacco. Thank you. Thank you, Dennis. Richard Lyle, could you move a little bit more? Yes, thank you, convener. Can I turn to the subject of advertising, and I'm sure that Guy would like to come in in regards to this, but Catherine made a comment earlier with showing the vaping that she's using. There are over 500 products that last count on sale in thousands of premises. The concern that I have many years ago, we stopped advertising tobacco on television, and I was actually shocked when I saw an advert on television one night in regards to a vaping product. There are over 500 products, and, with the greatest respect to the people who are selling them, they are basically backed by tobacco companies in some ways. Why are we allowing advertising for these products on television when we are done away with tobacco advertising? The concern that I have is that, in your report, there are only 544 individual complaints, and someone made a comment that they thought they saw on children's television, but you proved that it wasn't. The concern that I have is that children are watching television, and they may, or teenagers, start to walk into shops, even with the age restrictions that were put in place, and start to ask for these devices. Why are we advertising these on television now? I think that Alan Teeter has obviously indicated late to come in. Other people please do that, but Guy Parker will let you respond to that initially. Thank you very much. The really short answer is that they are different products, so e-cigarettes are not tobacco. The interesting question behind your question is the advertising of e-cigarettes going to in some way normalise tobacco smoking again. Is it going to provide a gateway in to smoking for people who wouldn't otherwise have smoked, including children, particularly children, because we're all worried about that. That's the worry, that's the concern, and that's the concern of people on the public health. People are a part of the public health debate. It has been debated for a few years now, this issue of whether or not, broadly speaking, e-cigarettes are net, likely to be a gateway in to tobacco smoking or a gateway out of tobacco smoking. I think the evidence, whilst obviously not conclusive, seems to be that they are net a really quite significant potential gateway out, an actual gateway out of smoking. The evidence seems to support, perhaps I would say this wouldn't I, but I think the evidence supports that we're drawing the lines in the right place when it comes to the advertising rules. The latest evidence, including the PHE report that was published last month, says that e-cigarettes are used almost exclusively by adult smokers. There's little evidence of their use by never smokers or children who haven't already tried tobacco. Where children are experimenting, and they are experimenting with e-cigarettes. Those who do that but don't smoke don't seem to be sticking with e-cigarettes, so they don't seem to be becoming regular e-cigarette smokers. These are all evidential points that I think underline the argument that e-cigarettes are a net gateway out of smoking rather than a gateway into smoking. This evidential basis in these arguments is absolutely critical for informing where we, as the advertising regulator, should be setting the rules. Because with e-cigarettes, they seem very largely to be used as a substitute product. People who were smoking tobacco are now smoking e-cigarettes, or people who were smoking that amount of tobacco are now smoking less because they're part vaping rather than wholly smoking. These are really important considerations for us because unlike some of the things that we're regulating, unlike some of the things where we're writing rules to cover advertising. If we make it much harder for advertisers of e-cigarettes to advertise e-cigarettes responsibly, and I hope I'll get an opportunity a little bit later to talk about some of the rules that we've got in there to make sure they do advertise responsibly. If we make it significantly harder for them to do that, then there's the potential for them to be less successful in marketing e-cigarettes and successful marketing of e-cigarettes. The evidence and argument seem to be showing equals people switching away from tobacco. So that's the reason that underpins it. We thought long and hard about whether or not to remove the restriction on the advertising, showing e-cigarettes in use in teleads. They were allowed to be advertised before, but in November of last year we bought in new rules that removed a restriction on them being shown in use that was never written with e-cigarettes in mind because when that rule was written e-cigarettes didn't exist. We removed that and we wondered whether we were making the right decision. I think we think now with the evidence that Ash produced, PHE produced and others. I think we think that we made the right decision. It was something that we thought very hard about. Richard, I'm going to mop up of comments from witnesses and then I'll take you back in for a supplementary and I'm sure at that point Guy Parker will want to come in and respond to some of those things as well. So just in order that people cut my eye, Alan Teeter followed by Catherine and then I'll come to you Charlie, okay? Yeah, there's sort of three main points I want to pick up on what you were suggesting specifically why should e-cigs be advertised and more importantly are they going to be seen or they will be seen by injured teens. At the moment, as Guy points out, there are quite heavy restrictions on electronic cigarette advertising. It does limit what we can and can't say, which I do agree with. The first point is obviously under 18s may see them because they're on TV or they're in the streets. But just coming to here today, I passed a few adverts from Budweiser with a picture of a bottle of Budweiser and a cheeseburger saying the perfect power couple. Again, any child could walk past that. Oh, be on a burger, that sounds quite fun. So I think it's important to realise that yes, okay children may see them but they're also going to see adverts for other things as well that they shouldn't be taking up and it's down to the age restrictions there to police that. The second thing obviously is with you making the point that some of the companies are owned by tobacco companies. I would say that e-cigs are closer to NRTs than they are cigarettes. And again, NRTs can be advertised because they are a way to move people away from tobacco products. So again, I think that's important to make that comparison there. And the third thing is obviously the suggestion that they're potentially a gateway. People, teenagers are going to see these adverts and go, oh, maybe I'll try an e-cigaret and then move on to cigarettes. I don't think that happens. I can't imagine anyone picking up a product and then deciding actually what I would like to do is move to something that's more expensive, smells worse and I know it's bad for me. I can't see that leap there. So there are the three points really I wanted to pick on there. Thank you, Catherine Devlin. Thank you very much. I wanted also to raise the question about the tobacco ownership in the independent sector. We did some research in early this year which showed that of the 407 brands in the UK or companies in the UK, six are tobacco owned. So the vast majority of this sector is independent of the tobacco industry and firmly entrenched in that independence would never sell out to the tobacco industry. So it's very important to recognise that there is a very distinct split between tobacco industry interests in this area and the independent sector. But I'd also like to just bring everybody's attention to something that the new nicotine alliance said in their submission about advertising. They said, an advertising ban on these products only serves to offer protection to the tobacco trade. We would contend that responsible advertising would serve to promote the idea of switching away from lethal tobacco products to a much safer option. And I think this is where it would be useful again to hear from Guy Parker about what the ASA rules were, how they were constructed, why they were so constructed and how they are working in practice. Because actually they're very robust and the ASA has very good systems in place to ensure that the advertising is targeted, particularly television advertising, is targeted based on target audience with very clever mechanisms for making sure that the right target audience gets those adverts. I will give Guy Parker the opportunity to come back on that bit. Charlie Cunningham, read first please. Yes, if I can just say a couple of points to what Catherine said, I think certainly the brands that are owned by the tobacco manufacturers and certainly our brand, Elites, is a significant player in the segments. I know that market shares, we don't have very conclusive data at the moment but I think our Elites has about 15% market share so it's significant. So I'd just like to say I think the company like JTI does have a lot to offer the e-cigarette industry in terms of our research and development capabilities, our resources, et cetera. Just moving on to the advertising, I would like to reiterate everything that has been said by Guy. I think in terms of evidence that advertising is leading to e-cigarettes being a gateway product. I don't think that evidence is there. Certainly we fully support every single activity to ensure that under 18s and indeed non smokers and non e-cigarette users are not encouraged to use our products. What I think advertising does do is advertising makes for the e-cigarette market to be more competitive. I think it leads it to be more innovative. I think it really encourages new products and new entrants to come into that market. It increases the awareness of what products are available and overall it can keep this segment growing. I think we're very much at the crossroads at the moment. We think there are about 2.5 million people across the UK who use e-cigarettes. They've been advertised for the last few years, certainly at the moment. What we do is advertise very responsibly. I think it would be a real shame right now to start over-regulating the industry so that new products, new ideas, innovative products could not be introduced in the future and the current trends that we're seeing could not be continued in the long term. I want to give people a running order of who's indicated the wish to speak. Richard, I do want to bring you back in shortly. John Lee's indicated the wish to speak. Richard, I welcome back to yourself before we go to Guy Parker. Mike, can I just say checks? I want to speak on this specific point as well. You're in the reamer of advertising. What we'll do is we'll take yourself as well and we'll finish up with Guy Parker and then I'll take a new bid from any MSPs that wants to move the conversation on in relation to that. John, can I take you just now? Thank you, convener. I think that Mr Lyle has really got to one of the most important issues on this bill. Just to say briefly that, as we were developing our submission to the call for evidence, we became very interested in a statement from specialist in nicotine science and public health policy, which was sent in 2014. To the director general of the World Health Organization. There were 10 principles in the statement and principle 6 said that it is counterproductive to ban the advertising of e-cigarettes and other low-risk alternatives to smoking, such as the potential tobacco harm reduction of these products. One of those was Professor Linda Ball, who gave evidence to the committee last week. We used that to form our opinion on advertising. We would agree with the view that any bans and advertising of e-cigarettes would be completely counterproductive in terms of realising their tobacco harm reduction potential. I just wanted to mention that to Mr Lyle. I'll be very happy to share that statement with him if that would help. Thank you, John. You've been very patient, Richard. Can I take you back and then we'll go to Mike? I find the comments actually quite interesting. To me, it's like the new dawn for advertising e-cigarettes. The situation is that we had in the past people coming on, different brands being advertised nightly. Now we have, and I think it actually was you that I'd get there, so on the television. I'm not exactly sure. I won't tell you, but basically I would ask Guy Parker again if it came that numerous companies, because e-cigarettes, when we first came across them, were being sold as you walked down a shopping precinct in a stall. Now they've moved into shops, now they're in garages, now they've actually opened up into shops selling each product. So, Guy, if it came to a point where 10 companies wanted to advertise, would you allow those 10 adverts nightly, or would you just restrict it to one? Guy, you're going to come back to that point, but you're also going to more pop and whatever Mike's now about to make his comment or question. I should apologise, convener, because when I introduced myself, I should have said, my name's Mike McKenzie and I'm a vapour, and I haven't had a cigarette now for over three years, which I regard as nothing short of a miracle in terms of the fact that I was a very heavy smoker for a very long time. One of the things that concerns me is that it's within the general area of advertising, because it touches on, my concern is about the disparity between the evidence that we've heard from health professionals and others about the potential benefits of e-cigarettes, and the evidence that we're seeing, for instance, from Spice, the Parliament's research department, who conducted some helpful survey, which shows that these devices enjoy a pretty negative perception in the public mind, and also among some policy makers, and I'm struggling to understand why that might be the case, because my concern is that, whilst those public perceptions remain, and I believe this is within the territory of advertising, within the scope of advertising, to perhaps attempt to change those public perceptions, therefore public attitudes and perhaps lead to better policy. Do you feel their scope, rather than taking the negative in a support, a precautionary principle, but rather than taking the negative approach, is their scope to go maybe a bit beyond that and take a more positive approach that will lead to better public health outcomes? I think that we have a bit of time there, Mr Parker. It's quite a while since we heard from him at the start, we have quite a lot of comments made. Do you want to make him mock some of that up, and maybe try to deal specifically with the points that Mr Lyle and Mr Mackenzie have made as well? Yes, can I deal with Richard's point first? Ten ads rather than one in an evening TV ad schedule. I think that if the ads are responsible and are complying with our rules, they're not targeting under 18. They're not indirectly promoting tobacco, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. As is currently the case, the evidence is showing the potentially very significant public health benefits at the population level of smokers and would-be smokers switching some or all of their smoking to vaping. If that continues, then I don't see why there shouldn't be ten ads rather than one, because those ten ads, as opposed to the one, might deliver even more switching. But we have to keep this under very close review. We don't know what the next generation of e-cigarette products are going to be like. It might be that they will seemingly unlike the current generations of products. It might be that they will prove attractive to young people who wouldn't otherwise have smoked. We've got to keep an eye on that. On the other end of the spectrum, we've got to keep an eye on the evidence of safety for individual products, which is weak at the moment. We know that PHE and others say that vaping is roughly 20% less harmful than smoking. That's good, but at the individual consumer product level, there's paucity of product specific evidence. The worry I have, and I agree with Mike's point, I think one has to look at the potential benefit of responsible advertising positively, if that's what you were saying. Mike, forgive me if I'm misquoting you, and not make the wrong policy decisions out of very well-meaning and well-founded fears about things like normalisation of smoking again and gateway in for young people. The banning advertising, responsible advertising of e-cigarettes, has two or three potentially, I think, bad consequences. One is you deny the ability to these companies, these e-cigarette manufacturers and marketers, to responsibly advertise products that the evidence is showing are very, very largely helping people to switch away from tobacco. Even if those people who are now vaping and were smoking, even if there is some safety issue, it's not nearly as bad as the safety issue they had before, the health issue they had before when they were smoking tobacco. Two, it sends a message to the world at large that e-cigarettes are as bad as tobacco, and we saw in Ash's report last month or the month before, 20 odd percent, 22 percent of people think that e-cigarettes are at least as harmful as tobacco or more harmful. 40 odd percent, 44 percent I think it was, I might not have got that quite right, think that it's pretty harmful, don't really know that actually e-cigarettes are much less harmful than tobacco. 44 percent, that's a big proportion of people, and if they then read the media coverage and see that e-cigarette advertising has been banned, that's just going to be reaffirmed in their mind. They're going to think of e-cigarettes as being a bad thing, or potentially they're going to think of e-cigarettes as being a bad thing. And then there are other arguments, unintended consequences arguments, like those that have been rehearsed a little bit earlier, about restricting the ability for companies to compete, preserving the market share of the existing encumbrant operators, removing the market advertising, whatever you think of advertising, it is a real engine for product development, improving products to provide better product experiences for consumers. And in this area where we really want e-cigarettes to evolve, so they are liked more and more by smokers or would-be smokers, so people vape rather than smoke. That sort of innovation is key, and I would say that advertising needs to be there to drive that sort of innovation. OK, thank you very much, Mr Parker. I've a bit from Mark Finlay and Catherine Devlin to come in still in relation to this topic. I think I could be wrong. Dennis, did you indicate you wish to speak? I'll take you first, Dennis, and then I'll let Mark and Catherine in. OK, thank you, convener. I mean, earlier we heard that there is potential risks. We don't know what they are to some extent, and I accept what you're saying that they're a lot less than smoking. I wonder from the community pharmacy perspective, if we're looking at advertising, should it be specifically targeted at smoking sensation in terms of this product can enable you to come off tobacco and move to rather than saying, because every time I'm hearing the term vapour, it's always followed by cigarette. Cigarette to me is still a key word, regardless of if it's an e-cigarette or not. I'm just wondering in terms of advertising if the term cigarette is still sending out a negative message, and I take the point of the positivity of trying to move forward from stopping smoking, harmful smoking, with tobacco products on to a less harmful product. I'm just wondering, do we have the balance right now? I'm just wondering, in community pharmacy, should advertising only be specific to moving from the tobacco to a less harmful product? A helpful Dennis, because Mark Finlay is next in. I'm sure that you have your own points you wish to make for coming in anyway, but if you could deal with all that Dennis has just said, that would be helpful too. I think that the most important thing, Dennis, is that we maximise the benefits of these products now. There is going to be, I believe, more of a role in terms of NHS smoking sensation services in the future, and I would imagine a licensed medical product would have an easier time with the advertising standards than potentially. Our concern would be that tobacco causes a lot of harm, and how we can maximise these products. I think that your recommendations about the dual licensing is correct, that we will get most benefit from that, so we just want to see a situation where the benefits are maximised. If I could also touch on Mike's point about perception, I think that the public probably perceptions seem to be outwith what the evidence is, but I'd say that's also true of healthcare professionals, and there isn't really consistent guidance for healthcare professionals around what would be the appropriate way to treat an e-cigarette user or an MVP user. I would really say at call that that would be of a big help to the healthcare professional community if we could have consistent guidance on how we should support people who maybe wish to quit or maybe even wish to just reduce their smoking through e-cigarettes, and consistency there would be very helpful. I'll try and be brief, but there's rather a lot of points to cover. Richard was saying earlier about testing and not being certain about the quality of the products that are there in the market at the moment. We recently sponsored the technical, provided technical authorship for the PAS that was published by BSI in July. That includes some guidance on testing protocols, recommendations on what information to convey to consumers about all that side of things as well. We hope that that's going to see a shift towards doing more testing and providing better information to consumers ahead of TPD implementation, which is under challenge and may or may not actually happen. The difficulty with advertising bans is that the message that that sends to smokers is that you might as well carry on smoking, and that can't be a good thing to tell smokers because we know that that causes immense amounts of damage. Medicinal claims, unfortunately, are actually forbidden. We can't tell the truth about the products. Marketers of these products are not allowed to tell the truth. They're not allowed to say, this product is demonstrably able to help you move away from tobacco smoking. You're not allowed to say that it's safer or healthier than smoking. You're not allowed to tell the truth so that it's very difficult to convey honest and informative messages to the public from the people who are actually providing them with the products, which is why I think Mark Finnie's call for better guidance from policy making bodies would be enormously helpful if it would allow healthcare professionals to be out there telling the truth to the public since the marketers are not allowed to. The only other point that I had was about the try before you buy issue, which may be something that we'll be coming on to later on. Do you want me to leave that as a separate entity? I'll tell you what, I'm looking at the time we have just now. The evidence session may run its course up to around 11 o'clock or so. I think we'll give you the opportunity maybe to put something on the record and really relation to that later if that's okay. I know that Alan Teeter wanted to come in and then I think Mike Mackenzie has indicated he was wanting to come back in. So, Alan? Yeah, it was mainly just to pick up on Mike's point there about the whole term of the cigarette. I think we've spent an awful lot of time, energy and money in the UK demonising the word cigarette. We all know cigarettes are bad and I think that's been ingrained in society for a good number of years. And then all of a sudden a new product is prominent on the market that it's just got an E in front of it. So it just says E-cigarette and the emphasis is still on the word cigarette. So I do think that's the problem. I think society have almost done it themselves and we've demonised the word cigarette and then obviously that's going to follow through onto there. At the moment companies are pretty much at the media controls what the public thinks about E-cigarettes at the moment and they're not limited to what they can say like we are. So I think that's definitely a problem and that's what's causing this public feeling about E-cigarettes. I know in some of our stores we've had people come in claiming all kinds of things such as, oh, they're worse than cigarettes, aren't they? And they've got poison in them, haven't they? And this is all generated by the media and we're unable to effectively combat that with the limitations we have on there. And also just to pick up what Catherine was saying about those limitations, she says rightly that we're not allowed to use medical professionals to promote our products. We're not allowed to use their own personal opinions or their opinions, but we are allowed to use David Hasselhoff or Vinnie Jones. So we can use celebrities to promote the product and say that they're great, but we can't use actual medical professionals to deliver that message, which again seems a strange situation. Thanks, Alan. And Mike, just before I let you in, I will give each of our witnesses an opportunity to maybe make a wee brief statement before we come to the end of the evidence session. Mr Park, and I'm conscious that we've not really dealt with anything in relation to the powers and sanctions you currently have in relation to breaching of advertising rules and the like. So maybe when we get to that stage, we might have an opportunity to put something as a step for a hint that no one's asked that question yet, we're hoping it would be asked. So if you could maybe deal with some of that in your summing up at the end, that would be quite helpful. Mike Mackenzie? Yeah, thank you, convener. It was just a precautionary note because when I think back in my own experience, when I started smoking aged 11, the motivation I suppose was perhaps summed up by Dorothy Parker when she said that, curiosity is the cure for boredom, but there's no cure for curiosity. And the other impulse I suppose was what Mike called the Garden of Eden impulse in as much as like a lot of the rest of man kind of never been able to resist the allure of the forbidden fruit. And for those people who are excessively cautious about these products, I would urge that they take that factor into consideration because if we demonise these products, we're on the risk of actually making them more attractive to the people who don't want to start using them, I think there's whilst at the same time denying the opportunity to the people we do want, the smokers that want to start on their journey to cutting down their stop and smoking. And I just wondered what the panel felt. Is there a risk in our whole approach to e-cigarettes as it, you know, within the scope of this bill and in the more general sense that we run that risk? I did say to witnesses that we'd probably finish around around 11 o'clock. I think most of the issues have had a reasonable airing here this morning. So perhaps one or two of you might want to reflect and Mike's comments part of that general round up if you're okay with that, Mike. Because the introduction is going this way, let's start from the other side. So if there's something that you just kind of wanted to put on the record or you have a reflection, brief would be good, but you know, this is your opportunity to say something. Now, Richard, I see my MSP colleague Richard Lyle. If you want to be brief and say something like someone to pick up on it, one second, Richard, hang on. If you want to be brief and you want to say, make a comment that you'd like someone to reflect on as we're doing that round, that's absolutely fine, but brevity would be good if that's okay. Richard Lyle. We've now introduced that the cigarettes are hidden behind a door in a shop. Should these cigarettes still be on the counter advertised so that everyone can see them or should they be the same as the cigarettes have now been hidden behind a door? I note that the witnesses in this side of the round table have much more chance to prepare for that answer and I think John Lee may wish to have a comment on that, but you're at the last comment. So this is what I was saying there before Richard made that good point. It would be helpful if there's something you haven't been able to say yet, now's your opportunity to put it on the record or something you want to reinforce and we'll go out and take that from witnesses just now. So, Mark, can I start with you? Thanks. The first thing I'd like to point out is that the tobacco strategy is very challenging and we need to find novel ways to reach that 5 per cent target by 2034. Everybody still suggests that the best chance of quitting smoking is using a NRT product. Now, it could be something that that would also involve an NVP and behavioural support and the NHS has provided that for some years. I think that there is still a huge role for that type of service. Now, in terms of community pharmacies and stocking of those products, our members who are choosing to do that are doing it so that they can start a conversation with someone and explain to them the pros and cons of a licensed NRT product, potentially an electronic cigarette if the patient wants to go down that road. So, there is still, I think, a huge role for that type of service, where there is behavioural support and potentially an e-cigarette. In fact, I think that at the moment, if a patient chooses to purchase an e-cigarette, they should still be able to access NHS services in terms of the behavioural support. I think that we just need to be very careful. There is potentially a big public health prize and we just need to be careful that we maximise it without exposing young people or potentially nonsmokers to these products. I think that it's good that we've had this discussion and these discussions need to happen. Recently, there have been a lot of knee-jerk reactions to the e-cigarette situation, so I think that it's good. I'd like to address Richard's comment about hiding e-cigarettes behind. I think that it depends on the type of electronic cigarette you're referring to. If you're referring to the kind that you would pick up, say a newsagent or a petrol station, what we would class as cigillites, then I think it wouldn't really have any impact on those kind of sales. I think that for the higher end products, the products that have the higher chance of success also, they really need consultation when purchasing. They're not something that I would ever recommend someone who's looking to move away from cigarettes, just goes and picks off the shelf, mainly because they need help to use a product effectively, to use it safely and to have the highest chance of success. I would say that kind of product, you'll do nothing but harm the consumer by sealing them away. Thank you very much, Alan. Charlie Cunningham reads. Firstly, on e-cigarettes, I would say that we do not need to overregulate the e-cigarette segment. To Richard's particular point, I absolutely agree with the other speaker. It would be completely counterproductive to ban the visibility of e-cigarettes in retail. I think the e-cigarette direction is correct. We don't see any evidence, significant evidence that children or nonsmokers are taking up e-cigarettes. I think that sensible regulations should prevail. We fully support not allowing under-18s to buy e-cigarettes, and I think that element of the bill is completely correct. I would just like to raise one more point on a different element of the bill, and that is the smoking in NHS premises. I just like to mention, because I watched the committee of last week, where there was a lot of discussion about this, and just to reiterate what we put in our written submission, we think that having an outright ban of smoking in NHS, on NHS premises, is excessive. I think that there is a simple solution, and I think that it is probably possible within the bill to enact that, and that would be to have segregated smoking areas within a sensible distance away from hospitals, but not expect smokers to be walking hundreds of yards, if not more, of the cold to go and have a cigarette. Thank you very much, Mr Cunningham. Will you read Guy Parker? Thank you, convener. We recognise the key concerns around e-cigarettes, the normalisation of tobacco argument, the gateway into smoking argument, but we think the arguments and the evidence better describe a reality where e-cigarettes are a gateway out of smoking for a lot of people. We think the e-cigarette rules that the airsa system has developed in the airsa is administering are comprehensive and robust and place the line in the right place, but we recognise that we need to keep them under review because the situation could change quite rapidly if a new generation of e-cigarette products comes in, or if people's use of e-cigarettes, particularly young people's use of e-cigarettes changes. We're conducting a review later this year to look into that. The current evidence shows the potentially significant public health benefits if smokers or would-be smokers switch some or all of their smoking to vaping. As I've said, we think that responsible advertising has got a part to play in that by potentially encouraging that switching. The thing I'd finish on is just to beware the unintended consequence of greater advertising restrictions, however well-intended they are. One, the unintended consequence of further ad restrictions preventing e-cigarette companies from powerfully but responsibly advertising their products and thereby competing with tobacco. Two, the consequence of sending an unintended but quite clear signal to the outside world that e-cigarettes are the same as tobacco when it comes to safety and health. Three, removing advertising removes a really key tool in driving innovation. If things carry on going the way they're going, innovation will mean even better competition against tobacco. Mr Parker, I think I'd maybe mention, just for putting on the record, because we're trying to cover as much of this area of the bill as possible just in terms of maybe what your thoughts are on the powers and sanctions that currently exist and whether there's the need for any additional powers in relation to sanctions for a breach of advertising rules above and beyond either what exists or what is contained within the bill. That's fairly chunky supplementary, but even just a brief comment will be something on the record and that would be quite helpful. I think that the sanctions that we've got in the ASA system to deal with non-compliance with our advertising rules are good enough to deal with the vast majority of circumstances that we face. Certainly the sort of circumstances we're likely to face in the e-cigarette area, which is very much under the microscope. The media are very interested in e-cigarettes as an issue and I think it's extremely unlikely that any e-cigarette company that was found to be breaching our rules would try to get away with not complying. I think we'd easily be able to bring them to task. I don't think that's actually the issue. I think the issue is, are the rules drawn in the right place? Are they subtle enough to deal with new technology, social media and so on, which we haven't really talked about, but I would say yes they are. We've got a good example of a ruling that we took against a company called Hubly Bubly in June of this year, where we found that claims on Hubly Bubly's website and their Twitter page and a video they posted on their YouTube channel. We found that they were in breach of our rules because they were appealing to people under 18 by featuring in a significant role people who looked or were under 25. We have this under 25 rule that we apply to e-cigarette advertising, much the same as a rule that we apply to alcohol, to provide a sort of seven year buffer between 18, which is soon going to be the legal purchase age, and 25 provide that buffer to try and avoid a situation where individuals are featuring in ads who may be appealing to younger people because they identify with them. Who might technically, might legally be 19 years of old, but look a bit younger. So I think there are good examples of us enforcing the rules that are in place. Thank you very much, Catherine Deadline. Thank you. I'll try and be brief. Richard made the point about tobacco displays, and I think there's an opportunity here to replace the tobacco displays, get rid of the tobacco, replace it all with electronic cigarette products. However, on a slightly more serious note, Alan made a very good point about the fact that actually some of the really good products that really do work for people, you actually do need a consultation, either with a specialist retailer or with the community pharmacist through the NHS services programme. Now, we're very fortunate in the UK. We've had Louise Ross, who led the charge. She is a stop smoking service manager in Leicestershire, and she led the charge on this, and she has been able to report some data recently, which, if the committee hasn't seen, I will happily supply, demonstrating how effective it has been to have that combination of the behavioural support, possibly with some licensed medical products, and the use of e-cigarettes within the context of the stop smoking service. I think that that's the sweet spot. It's that combination that can really get us to the smoke-free generation. Thank you. Thank you, Catherine. Oh, sorry. There was also the try before you buy. Just really quickly. Go on then, yes. I just want to raise the point that, again, in the context of the retail stores, you need to be able to do the demonstration and allow the customer to try the product before they buy it, so that, obviously, they can have that as part of the consultation. Thank you. That is now on the record, so thank you for that. John Leane. Thank you, convener. There are five and a half thousand convenience stores in Scotland, providing over 32,000 jobs, and the total value of sales in the sector is some £4 billion per annum. Convenience stores or retailers are totally committed to selling age-restricted products responsibly. E-cigarettes are sold by most of our members, although the market is both relatively new and relatively underdeveloped. Our members see e-cigarettes as being something of an uncertain category in that they are unsure how future legislation will impact on these products. We are very supportive of most of the main provisions in the bill. Most of our members already treat e-cigarettes as being age-restricted products and will have an age verification policy in place. It is clear that the proxy purchase of these products should be an offence, although this is always a very difficult problem to deal with in store. We do have concerns about the proposed ban on advertising. The explanatory notes accompanying the bill suggest that the Scottish Government would not ban advertising at point of sale. However, this has not made explicit and the bill is introduced, and we would hope to see the Scottish Government addressing this at stage 2. Overall, we feel that the ban on advertising will be highly counterproductive, particularly given the growing recognition of the potential health benefits of NVPs. On a personal note, I feel that, to an extent, the bill is already somewhat behind the curve. We have seen new evidence from Public Health England and so on that are really beginning to highlight the potential health benefits of these products. I think that we are going to realise that the market is much more complex and much more sophisticated than perhaps the bill alludes to. It gives the Scottish Government far too reconditioning powers in terms of restricting the advertising. To go back to Mr Lell's point, should they be subject to a tobacco display, absolutely not. If we go down that route, it is fair to say that the potential harm reduction impact of these products will simply never be realised. As ever, we are grateful to the committee for this opportunity to engage directly with it, and I hope that you have found this evidence session helpful. Thank you very much, Mr Leighton. I did not want to stop our witnesses in full for lodges for clarity in relation to Charlie Cunningham's comments on smoking on NHS sites. The bill proposes to enable ministers to ban smoking of tobacco cigarettes in parts of hospital grounds. It will be for each NHS board to decide whether smoking is permitted in any other part of hospital grounds. I would say to witnesses that we will return to this. Richard, that is not my thought, if you use our opinions. We are going to return to this for scrutiny next week's evidence session, but I do not choose to open up that debate this morning. I do not want to cover that point enough. Last week, can I welcome the comments made by John Lee? When I first started working, I was a grocer for 20 years and I know and compliment the hard work that many of your businesses and fellow grocers do. Catherine, can I agree with you again the comments? Richard, I am really sorry, but I think that I would be unfair to other MSP colleagues if I let you then come in and give your comments, because everyone will have their own thoughts and reflections on what the various witnesses have said. I was trying as hard as I could to give the witnesses the last word to your rather noses MSPs. I hope that you all feel that you have a good earing of your thoughts and opinions today, as well as our MSPs colleagues have an opportunity to ask those questions. I thank everyone for coming along and giving their evidence. As previously agreed, we are now going to move into a private session. I will pause for a moment for the public gallery to be clear.